Questions for adherents of the Bible alone.

[Hazelelponi]

Agreed. I would only say that I wish you hand understood what you said from reading the Word of God instead of from an angel.

Yeah, I'd still be basically non believer if that was the case. And I'm serious on that.

I was Muslim. Spent a lot of time believing the Bible was absolutely corrupted, furthermore, i was also willing (and happy) to throw out every word Paul said..

I thought we could trust the Torah, and i was willing to go out on a limb and accept the words the Bible says that Jesus spoke were true.

I wasn't willing to go any further, I was too convinced the Bible was written by men, and that likely a lot was left out, but I didn't know what.

I just couldn't trust the Book... and i was seriously confused, torn even. I just didn't know what to believe...

God literally gave me faith.

My husband helped in many ways, but God had to take me to faith.. and He did.

 

[Call me Nic]

Yeah, I'd still be basically non believer if that was the case. And I'm serious on that.

I was Muslim. Spent a lot of time believing the Bible was absolutely corrupted, furthermore, i was also willing (and happy) to throw out every word Paul said..

I thought we could trust the Torah, and i was willing to go out on a limb and accept the words the Bible says that Jesus spoke were true.

I wasn't willing to go any further, I was too convinced the Bible was written by men, and that likely a lot was left out, but I didn't know what.

I just couldn't trust the Book... and i was seriously confused, torn even. I just didn't know what to believe...

God literally gave me faith.

My husband helped in many ways, but God had to take me to faith.. and He did.

Well, however it happened, praise God that it did friend and that you're saved.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Well, however it happened, praise God that it did friend and that you're saved.

Amen!

 

[Major1]

And you all should understand the need for me to correct my friend Major1. Yes, I am a devout member of the Church started by Jesus Christ,, The Holy Catholic Church! Not just a member of one of the many Rites within the Catholic Church (Eastern and Western) such as Ukrainian, Maronite, Romanian, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Coptic, Armenian, Latin, ect. And if my friend Major1, (who has claimed on numerous occasions being very knowledgeable of the Catholic Church and her teachings) were to go to his Catechism of the Catholic Church, (if he owns one) he would learn that the CCC explains that there is one universal Church, the "unique Catholic Church," and many particular churches, each a community of Catholics who are joined by faith and the sacraments and their bishop (CCC 833).

And being as knowledgeable of the Catholic faith as he claims to be, he should also know that the Second Vatican Council teaches from these individual churches comes the fullness of the one and only Catholic Church! (Lumen Gentium 23).

And something else I should correct my friend Major1 on (something I'm surprised he dosen't know)
is that the term "Roman Catholic Church" was originally started by the Anglicans........ not Catholics because in English-speaking countries it is commonly used to denote the entire Catholic Church—which ignores all the other particular churches that have their own rites and traditions.


And to finish his (Maj1) sentence:



So? FYI, It's called having a discussion. Please tell me Major1 you are not against having a friendly debate? If you are..... your participation in this discussion is not required for this thread to continue, but is strongly encouraged and welcomed.



That is very kind of you. (even though you don't care.)



And where in Scripture does it tell us to find this truth? (hint: St. Paul tells us where to find this truth)

But wait....... before you answer this, how about you answering my original two questions:

1. Is it your belief that without the Bible the entire structure of Christianity would, indeed, fall apart?

2. And is it also your belief that the only significant basis for Christian belief is found in the Bible?

I would be glad to my friend. And than you for the kind words.
Also I do not have a lot of knowledge about the Catholic church, but all of what anyone needs to know is easily found and I am able to read very well.

Actually I am surprised that you would ask such questions.

1. YES!

The Bible presents the only logical and sane assessment of reality—an objective standard, authored by the Creator, exists for the entire human race. That standard resides within the confines of the Christian religion as articulated in the New Testament. Unless human civilization gauges its moral behavior according to that objective, absolute framework, moral and spiritual chaos in society will be the end result.

In the words of Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration of Independence: “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they, therefore, who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments” (as quoted in Steiner, 1907, p. 475, emp. added).

2. YES!

Now, if the Christian faith is NOT found exclusively in the Bible, where would it be found.

The World Atlas?
The Quran?
The Washington Post?
How to Make Friends and Influence Enemies?
How To Succeed in Life.
Algebra 101?

Actually both of your questions are asking the same thing.

2 Tim. 3:16-17...…...
Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work ".

2 Peter 1:20-21...……...
"No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God "

These two short verses give a definition of the Christian concept of the inspiration of Scripture and the understaning of Christianity and both are from the Bible. All Scripture is given by God. It was given in two main ways, first by direct revelation (by which the actual words of God are recorded by the prophets): second by inspiration (by which the Holy Spirit guided the prophets as they wrote and thus the prophets wrote Divine Truth).

 

[Major1]

Your point is moot because Paul calls himself a preacher and apostle, and a teacher to the Gentiles (2 Timothy 1:10); Paul obviously taught Timothy (2 Timothy 1:13), but that relationship is no different than a preacher teaching his congregation. I and my friend sit down quite often and edify one another according to the scriptures, teaching and admonishing one another in God's word. That's been done since Christ himself walked the earth, and is completely taught and shown forth in scripture.

Now, in regards to the idea of tradition: the Bible makes a distinction regarding it. There is biblical tradition after Christ and the apostles following him, and there is tradition after men which can and will transgress the commands of God (Colossians 2:8, Matthew 15:3-6), because indeed, Paul exhorts us to follow after the tradition set forth for us by Christ (Ephesians 2:20, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6).

2 Thessalonians 2:15 says "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." The apostles aren't alive anymore, and since we cannot physically hear them for ourselves, we have nothing to go on but their epistles. Now, they wouldn't say anything by word that they had not taught in their epistles, I wouldn't think, would they?

What it comes down to is this: you have to prove from the Bible that apostolic succession is viable, that Jesus Christ himself personally and visibly chose each successor throughout the millennia since the church was established to be an authority here on earth while he was gone. But how can you, except you claim tradition? Because you cannot prove apostolic succession from the Bible. The Bible says to follow tradition, but the tradition which was delivered us by the apostles (2 Thessalonians 3:6), either through word (which can happen no longer) or by epistle (which is with us to this day). So, would I trust the authority of men's traditions which have changed much over 2,000 years? Or trust the scripture and it's traditions that has never changed and remained constant forever? I'll take the latter, thank you.



Obviously the Bible isn't contradicting itself here, and it cannot even be close to saying Christ's suffering was insufficient. Look at the next verse, sir. Colossians 1:25 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God;" Paul is not saying that the affliction of Christ was insufficient or lacking (as your translation ineptly puts it), but rather that suffering for Christ's sake and also the church's sake is his reason for rejoicing, because God gave him purpose to fulfill the word of God (by preaching the gospel to the gentiles), and as a result of fulfilling the word of God, he is suffering for it. He is merely making the point that his ministry is bearing fruit, but because of it he is experiencing tribulation on the behalf of the church and the Lord, that by suffering, he's saying he is to "fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:" or in other words, to preach the word of God and suffer for it, as was prophesied in Matthew 10:16-28 and elsewhere in the Bible. When considering the context, it makes perfect sense.


2 Peter 1:20-21 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." In context, this is actually saying that prophecy did not come of their own interpretation in terms of the fact that they did not prophecy according to their understanding, but men in times past prophesied according to the inspiration of the holy Ghost, merely reinforcing the fact that scripture and prophecy in scripture is inspired of God like in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Otherwise, if we had to have men to help us understand or "interpret" scripture, that would contradict this passage: 1 John 2:26-27 "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide him."

After all, it is the Spirit of God that teaches and guides into all truth (John 16:13), not man. And while one could argue that the Spirit of God is in every believer according to Ephesians 1:13, not every believer walks in the spirit according to Romans 8:1. If one were to argue the apostles were the only men to which John 16:13 applied, then that's fair, because Jesus spoke directly to them in that passage, but that still does not support your position in the least.

Here's a list of extra-biblical catholic teachings:
1. Merited Grace
2. Penance for salvation
3. Purgatory
4. Indulgences
5. Intercession of Mary
6. Prayer to the saints.

Agreed. You listed only 6 EXTRA Biblical teachings but there are probably 30 or more.

 

[Call me Nic]

Agreed. You listed only 6 EXTRA Biblical teachings but there are probably 30 or more.

Ah, good to hear from you Major. And yes, only 6, but the 6 I know how to disprove from the Bible

 

[Major1]

Thanks for your response Rawtheran.

As a Catholic, my belief is that the true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.


Again, Thanks and have a Blessed Day

You said...…….
"as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church".

Now, where in the Bible can we find that opinion so that we can verify it?

If there are No Scriptures which verify your opinion then that is exactly what your comment is my dear friend.

 

[Major1]

All I can say then is that obviously Major1 didn't get the memo.

Yes he did!

John 17:17...…..
"Sanctify them with your Word, Your Word is truth".

Isa. 40:8...…..
Yes, grass withers and flowers fade, but the word of our God endures forever.

Matt. 7:24...…..
So then, anyone who hears these words of mine and obeys them is like a wise man who built his house on rock.

 

[Major1]

But yet my friend, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about Scripture being complete, fully equipped, and sufficient as a sole rule of faith, including the passage you posted (2 Tim. 3:16).

What I always find interesting when adherents of sola scriptura quote this passage, is they always leave the previous two verses out.

“14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 Every scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

As one can see, St.Paul is telling Timothy to remain in what he has firmly believed and then cites two bases for that belief:

1.He knows from whom he has learned it.

2.This was the oral teachings of the apostle Paul himself, so right here we have Timothy’s beliefs being based on apostolic Tradition.

And

3.From childhood Timothy has been acquainted with the holy Scriptures. So this is the second basis for Timothy’s beliefs.

So Nicolous M, and with all due respect, when adherents of the Bible Alone (I used to be one by the way) quote verses 16 and 17, they are only quoting the back half of a double appeal to Tradition and Scripture, clearly something that does not prove sola scriptura. (The Bible Alone)



Yes



Okay, but would you also agree that this does not change the fact that the Scriptures are not always simple to interpret. For example, what would be your view on St. Paul’s letter to the Colossians 1:24 in which he writes:



What do you make of this? Are we to believe St.Paul is telling us something is lacking in Christ’s suffering? By reading this, St.Paul seems to be saying that Christ's death on the cross was not enough. Right? However, elsewhere throughout Scripture we are told with full assurance that we have been saved once and for all through Christ (Heb. 7:27). Either the Bible is contradicting itself or a very subtle interpretation must be applied to the given text in order to square it with the rest. I obviously opt for the second option.

We should also remember what St. Peter warns us in 2 Pet.3:16 that there are things in the Sciptures that are hard to understand “which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction”. And where he also warns us in 2 Pet.1:19 that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”. I would hope we could both agre that the bottom line is that interpretation of the Bible is serious business. Correct?





Are you then saying that Early Church writings are not useful and should be disreguarded?




Could you give a couple examples of these extra-biblical teachings of the Catholic Church?


Have a Blessed Day

You said...……………
Could you give a couple of examples of extra-Biblical teachings of the Catholic church?

LOL.....Are YOU serious????
f I had not read this question I would not have believed that you could have asked it.

A couple????????

Now remember...……...YOU ASKED.....
Prayers for the dead.
Sign of the Cross.
Wax Candles.
Veneration of angels and dead saints.
The Mass.
Worship of Mary.
Use of term, "Mother of God"
Priests began to dress differently from the laity.
Extreme Unction.
Purgatory
The Latin language as the language of prayer and worship in churches.
The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9).
Prayers directed to Mary,
The Papacy is of pagan origin.
Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).

Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome." 610

The kissing of the Pope's feet
The Temporal power of the Popes
Worship of the cross, images and relics
Holy Water
Veneration of St. Joseph
The baptism of bells
Canonization of dead saints,
Fasting on Fridays

The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

The celibacy of the priesthood
The Rosary,
The Inquisition of heretics
The sale of Indulgences,
The dogma of Transubstantiation
Confession of sin to the
The adoration of the wafer
The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books
The Scapular
The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity
The doctrine of Purgatory

There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1). 1439

The doctrine of 7 Sacraments

The Ave Maria
Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible
The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent
The Creed of Pope Pius IV
The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX
Papal Infallibility
Condemnation of the Public Schools
In the year 1931 the RCC reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God"

Assumption of the Virgin Mary

Bible scholar have found that 75% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.

Cardinal Newman, in his book, “The Development of the Christian Religion,” admits that “Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin...” (Page 359).

http://jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

 

[Major1]

Ah, good to hear from you Major. And yes, only 6, but the 6 I know how to disprove from the Bible

Agreed. I went ahead and listed a few more for "Fidelibus" as he asked for more.

 

[Major1]

Yeah, I'd still be basically non believer if that was the case. And I'm serious on that.

I was Muslim. Spent a lot of time believing the Bible was absolutely corrupted, furthermore, i was also willing (and happy) to throw out every word Paul said..

I thought we could trust the Torah, and i was willing to go out on a limb and accept the words the Bible says that Jesus spoke were true.

I wasn't willing to go any further, I was too convinced the Bible was written by men, and that likely a lot was left out, but I didn't know what.

I just couldn't trust the Book... and i was seriously confused, torn even. I just didn't know what to believe...

God literally gave me faith.

My husband helped in many ways, but God had to take me to faith.. and He did.

I am only saying to you that we can be fooled by SAtan and his demons who can appear as angels in order to confuse and deceive.

Salvation does not come from angels but instead listen to Romans 10:17...….
"FAITH come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

JUst be very careful and make sure what you hear is what is then found in the Bible my friend.

 

[Fidelibus]

You said...……………
Could you give a couple of examples of extra-Biblical teachings of the Catholic church?

LOL.....Are YOU serious????
f I had not read this question I would not have believed that you could have asked it.

First off, Yes.... I am, heart attack serious.

Secondly, I like folks to take note of the anti-Catholic web-site you copied and pasted from. And in doing so Maj1, you expect us to take you serious? Sorry! Quoting from that site is like going to the web-site of the Ku Klux Klan and asking thier views on African Americans! As far as I'm concerned, by doing this, your creditability score dropped a few points.

Thirdly, I am not about to give the anti-Catholic web-site and it's numurous fallacies you quoted from the benefit of a re-quote. However, if you'd like to continue having a serious discussion on Sola Scriptura,The Bible and Catholicism without the anti- Catholic rhetoric, I would like to hear your clear definition and the differences of Catholic Doctrine, Dogmas, Dogmatic facts, Theology, the Sacraments and Sacramentals. I would be more than happy to discuss, explain, and correct any myths or fallicies you have of them, a couple at a time. But keep in mind, I will not allow you to filibuster the discussion. Agreed?

Have a Blessed day

 

[Fidelibus]

Your point is moot because Paul calls himself a preacher and apostle, and a teacher to the Gentiles (2 Timothy 1:10); Paul obviously taught Timothy (2 Timothy 1:13), but that relationship is no different than a preacher teaching his congregation. I and my friend sit down quite often and edify one another according to the scriptures, teaching and admonishing one another in God's word. That's been done since Christ himself walked the earth, and is completely taught and shown forth in scripture.

With all due respect N.M, I don't see how you can say my point is moot, and your's is not (Actually, it's not my point, it's the Catholic Church's point, the same Church that compiled the Buble) because wouldn't it be fair to say that everything you have said here, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? I ask that because you rest a crucial point of yours, not on the Word of God, but on your fallible, non-authoritative opinion, correct?

Now, in regards to the idea of tradition: the Bible makes a distinction regarding it. There is biblical tradition after Christ and the apostles following him, and there is tradition after men which can and will transgress the commands of God (Colossians 2:8, Matthew 15:3-6), because indeed, Paul exhorts us to follow after the tradition set forth for us by Christ (Ephesians 2:20, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6).

2 Thessalonians 2:15 says "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." The apostles aren't alive anymore, and since we cannot physically hear them for ourselves, we have nothing to go on but their epistles. Now, they wouldn't say anything by word that they had not taught in their epistles, I wouldn't think, would they?

And then my question to you as a sola scripturist would be:

Where does the Bible say all revelation ceased after the apostolic age?


Then I would go on to say the first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). Not to mention the Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Origen, ect. whose writings supported Apostolic Traditions three or four generations brfoe the Bible was compiled and thirteen plus centuries before the existence of Protestantism.

What it comes down to is this: you have to prove from the Bible that apostolic succession is viable, that Jesus Christ himself personally and visibly chose each successor throughout the millennia since the church was established to be an authority here on earth while he was gone.

Sorry, but I do not, and will not have to prove from the Bible that apostolic succession is viable. For me to do so, I would be admitting that sola scriptura (the Bible Alone) is viable and is the basis for a sole rule of faith, something I do not adhere too, aswell as being unscriptural.

But how can you, except you claim tradition? Because you cannot prove apostolic succession from the Bible. The Bible says to follow tradition, but the tradition which was delivered us by the apostles (2 Thessalonians 3:6), either through word (which can happen no longer) or by epistle (which is with us to this day). So, would I trust the authority of men's traditions which have changed much over 2,000 years? Or trust the scripture and it's traditions that has never changed and remained constant forever? I'll take the latter, thank you.

I think this can be answered by asking you one simple question..........

Without using the Sacred Tradition, can you precisely define the table of contents of the Bible?

2 Peter 1:20-21 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." In context, this is actually saying that prophecy did not come of their own interpretation in terms of the fact that they did not prophecy according to their understanding, but men in times past prophesied according to the inspiration of the holy Ghost, merely reinforcing the fact that scripture and prophecy in scripture is inspired of God like in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Once again, do you agree everything you have said here, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself?

Otherwise, if we had to have men to help us understand or "interpret" scripture, that would contradict this passage: 1 John 2:26-27 "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide him."

And without any authority, where has that got Protestantism so far? let's see....individual interpretation has been tried and found wanting, as is evident by the rise of the thousands of Protestant denominations and sects since sola scriptura came into practice. For example, many non-Catholic Christians hold that baptism is merely symbolic and that no actual changes occur in the baptized soul, and some do not. Some Protestants denominations believe in the Real Presence, but most, however, do not believe in the Real Presence, but rather, that Jesus was merely speaking symbolically at the Last Supper. Some Protestant denominations accept Gay Marriage and some do not. Some believe Abortion is acceptable, and some do not. I could go on and on with examples of private interpretation of Scripture without any form of authority.


After all, it is the Spirit of God that teaches and guides into all truth (John 16:13), not man. And while one could argue that the Spirit of God is in every believer according to Ephesians 1:13, not every believer walks in the spirit according to Romans 8:1. If one were to argue the apostles were the only men to which John 16:13 applied, then that's fair, because Jesus spoke directly to them in that passage, but that still does not support your position in the least.

And where does Scripture tell us to find these truths?

Here's a list of extra-biblical catholic teachings:
1. Merited Grace
2. Penance for salvation
3. Purgatory
4. Indulgences
5. Intercession of Mary
6. Prayer to the saints.

The words of these so-called extra-biblical catholic teachings you listed may not be found explicitly in the Bible, but can be found implicitly, such as the words and belief of the Trinity and Incarnation which I could show through Scripture.

Have a Blessed Day

 

[Fidelibus]

I believe in the Bible... Sola Scriptura (? First time I've ever written that!)

Could you show where in the Bible it states that sola scriptura (the bible alone) is sufficient as a sole rule of faith?

Anyway I believe the Protestant Bible is the Word of God. God Breathed.

As a Sola Scripturist, again, could you show the verse in the Bible where it speaks of this "Protestant Bible"?

 

[Fidelibus]

I believe that the Protestant Bible, as originally written down, is the Word that God wants me to have.

Could I ask what you mean by "originally written down?" Protestantism didn't come into existence until the year 1517. Are you suggesting there was no Bible until then?

 

[Fidelibus]

You said...…….
"as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church".

Now, where in the Bible can we find that opinion so that we can verify it?

If there are No Scriptures which verify your opinion then that is exactly what your comment is my dear friend.

My dear friend Major1, Catholicanswers.com explains it quite nicely for you here: (take special notice of the last paragraph)

"We cling tightly to this tradition because it's true, for starters, and because all Christians are commanded to do so by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you'll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus' Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas's suicide.

They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was "chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away." After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.

Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

Lastly, please do better homework on early Christian writings. The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity."


Here is another article from Catholicanswers.com that may be of interest to you;


"Full Question:

Is apostolic Tradition, apart from the Bible, inerrant or can it contain errors?


Answer:

It is inerrant, and because it is inerrant, apostolic Tradition will never contradict the Bible, which is also inerrant. Human traditions may contain mistakes, but apostolic Tradition does not. Any teaching that the apostles authoritatively passed down to the Church is inerrant, irrespective of whether it is written down.

The key to telling which Traditions are apostolic and which are merely human is the same as they key to telling which writings are apostolic and which are merely human. It is the magisterium that recognizes the "canon" of apostolic Tradition, just as it recognized the canon of apostolic Scripture.

Scripture and Tradition are important because anything the apostles authoritatively passed down to the Church, whether written or not, is inerrant. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together . . . flowing out from the same divine well-spring, [they] come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (CCC 80, 82, citing Vatican II, Dei Verbum 9)

Most of apostolic Tradition contains the same material that is found in apostolic Scripture, only in a different form. This makes the two useful for interpreting each other because they contain the same material phrased different ways.

For example, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is found several places in Scripture, such as in John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But because Jesus uses the metaphor for baptism, "born of water and the Spirit," many Protestants have tried to deny that it is a reference to baptism at all and have claimed that baptismal regeneration is false.

This is disproven through the apostolic Tradition preserved in the writings of the Church Fathers, who not only teach baptismal regeneration but also unanimously interpret John 3:5 as referring to baptism (see "The Fathers Know Best" column in the October 1994 issue of This Rock)."



Have a Blessed Day my friend

 

[Major1]

Really,,,, you're surprised? Let's see after you read my rebuttle.

So...... I asked if it is your belief that without the Bible the entire structure of Christianity would, indeed, fall apart? And you stated...... without doubt....Yes! So how about the first Christians that preceded the Christian Bible? How do you explain where early history of Christianity that the New Testament writings did not begin until at least a decade after Christ started the Church, yet those who believed were Christians and therefore constituted the Church? (1 Cor. 1:2 cf. 15:1-5).

Secondly, Without the Bible, could you explain how Christianity continued to exist without most of its members possessing the New Testament? Or even after the New Testament started to be
written and copied, its contents were not in the possession of the average believer? Not only that, history (oops, theres that word again) even literate Christians would have to wait 1,500 years or so, when the printing press made bibles widely accessible. How would you explain that? Even in our own time Maj1, people from many parts of the world become Christians when the Bible is forbidden or inaccessible in their own language. Yet Christianity has spread across the globe. It is possible, then Maj1, that Christianity’s message could have been communicated only orally through the ages? So with this being said, you still going to stick to the belief without the Bible the entire structure of Christianity would, indeed, fall apart? Or do you still believe that the early Christians, or all Christians that didn't have the Bible lived in moral and spiritual chaos?





First off, that's not what I asked. I asked, "Is it also your belief that the only significant basis for Christian belief is found in the Bible?" And again you answerd, without a hint of doubt.....Yes!

Again, let's see. You as an adherent to the belief of Sola Scriptura, (the Bible Alone) can show the Bible verses for......


1. Where the Bible say's explicity we should make Jesus our personal Lord and Savior?

2. Where the Bible say's explicitly the words to the "Sinners Prayer?"

3. Where the Bible say's explicity we are not purified of sin after death?

4.Where the Bible say's explicity all revelation ceased after the apostolic age?

5. Where in the Bible does it explicity mention the "Altar Call?"

If these verses are "NOT" found exclusively in the Bible, where would they might be found.

The World Atlas?
The Quran?
The Washington Post?
How to Make Friends and Influence Enemies?
How To Succeed in Life?

Thank you for the question. First of all, I think that you should post where you got your questions from and it is ...........
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/christianity-without-the-bible
That is "Plagerism" and it is strictly forbidden by the rules of the forum.

#1.
You/THEY asked …..………..
"So how about the first Christians that preceded the Christian Bible? "

The driving force behind the growth and development of the New Testament church was the expository preaching of the Word of God by the APOSTLES.

Acts 19:20....……….
"In this way, the Word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed".


#2.
You/THEY asked...…….
Without the Bible, could you explain how Christianity continued to exist without most of its members possessing the New Testament?

Romans 10:17………
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

The question is with out merit! The obvious fact lies in the power of the Holy Spirit that worked in and through the Apostles to spread the gospel.

From the Catholic website you used we find the root of YOUR/THEIR opinion...…….
"So, ultimately, it is not the Bible but the historic Christian Church (which gave the world the canonical scriptures and their orthodox interpretation) that skeptics must defeat in order to bring Christianity down. This puts the Catholic apologist in a much stronger position than the Protestant, who must build his defense on the trustworthiness of just part of the Church’s tradition while rejecting others."

And there it is! No matter the facts, and no matter the Scriptures you as a Catholic believe that Christianity originated from the Roman Catholics and NOT THE WORD OF GOD.

As for your other questions may I ask you where in the Bible is ……..
Purgatory,
Mary is sinless,
Mary was Assumed to heaven,
Mary did not have other children,
The Rosary,
Bishops are to be called FATHER,
Bishops can not be married,
The worship of Idols.

People who live in glass house should never pick up a rock.

 

[Greg J.]

Could I ask what you mean by "originally written down?" Protestantism didn't come into existence until the year 1517. Are you suggesting there was no Bible until then?

I mean, as written down by original writers in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. It is the way I say I believe the Bible is without error while trying to prevent a topic shift toward Bible inerrancy.

The "Protestant Bible" existed since it's original canonization in the 5th century, by the way, unless one objectifies the Bible rather than views it as a collection of writings. Although as a collection of writings, it existed long before then.

 

[Major1]

My dear friend Major1, Catholicanswers.com explains it quite nicely for you here: (take special notice of the last paragraph)

"We cling tightly to this tradition because it's true, for starters, and because all Christians are commanded to do so by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you'll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus' Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas's suicide.

They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was "chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away." After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.

Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

Lastly, please do better homework on early Christian writings. The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity."


Here is another article from Catholicanswers.com that may be of interest to you;


"Full Question:

Is apostolic Tradition, apart from the Bible, inerrant or can it contain errors?


Answer:

It is inerrant, and because it is inerrant, apostolic Tradition will never contradict the Bible, which is also inerrant. Human traditions may contain mistakes, but apostolic Tradition does not. Any teaching that the apostles authoritatively passed down to the Church is inerrant, irrespective of whether it is written down.

The key to telling which Traditions are apostolic and which are merely human is the same as they key to telling which writings are apostolic and which are merely human. It is the magisterium that recognizes the "canon" of apostolic Tradition, just as it recognized the canon of apostolic Scripture.

Scripture and Tradition are important because anything the apostles authoritatively passed down to the Church, whether written or not, is inerrant. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together . . . flowing out from the same divine well-spring, [they] come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (CCC 80, 82, citing Vatican II, Dei Verbum 9)

Most of apostolic Tradition contains the same material that is found in apostolic Scripture, only in a different form. This makes the two useful for interpreting each other because they contain the same material phrased different ways.

For example, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is found several places in Scripture, such as in John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But because Jesus uses the metaphor for baptism, "born of water and the Spirit," many Protestants have tried to deny that it is a reference to baptism at all and have claimed that baptismal regeneration is false.

This is disproven through the apostolic Tradition preserved in the writings of the Church Fathers, who not only teach baptismal regeneration but also unanimously interpret John 3:5 as referring to baptism (see "The Fathers Know Best" column in the October 1994 issue of This Rock)."



Have a Blessed Day my friend

You or they said...……….
" Human traditions may contain mistakes, but apostolic Tradition does not. Any teaching that the apostles authoritatively passed down to the Church is inerrant, irrespective of whether it is written down."

But the apostles DID NOT pass down the ………..
Sinlessness of Mary,
Purgatory,
Rosary,
Praying to the dead,
Assumption of Mary,
Praying to Mary,

Those are all products of the Catholic church without any apostolic authority.

 

[Major1]

Can't believe I missed this post of your's Major1. After reading it, well...... quite frankly I'm a bit disappointed in you. Not surprised, but disappointed. What you posted is no more than an out right untruth. (some people might call it a lie) I did not ask "you" for more of these so-called extra-biblical teachings of the Catholic Church. What I did do....... back on post # 13 was ask Nicolaus Mourer (not you) if he could give a "couple' examples of these so-called extra-biblical teachings of the Catholic Church. Couple, as in two maybe three, and got six, which was fine.

Unfortunately, you found this as an opportunity to futher your anti-Catholic agenda by posting a list that contained many myths and fallacies from a very anti-Catholic web-site. (which is also disappointing) So as for me "asking for more" (with a hug no less) as you bluntly put it, being a out right untruth is very disappointing coming from a Christian friend. Not sure what non-Denominational sect or Protestant Church you are a member of these day's, but pretty sure lying about what somebody said or didn't say is considered a sin. One thing I can be sure about, is that lying is considered a very grave sin in the teachings of the Catholic Church! And more importantly, also to God I might add.


If it were I that did something such as this, I would feel an apology would be in order. As for yourself, all I can say is to let your conscience guide you. Either way, I have already forgiven you my friend.


Have Blessed day my friend.

Actually my dear friend, I do not have but ONE agenda and that is the TRUTH as found in the Word of God.

All of this back and forth and confrontation is all about YOU standing up for your Catholic church and its doctrines made by sinners, and me standing up for the Word of God.

That's it in a nut shell. You have just stated or at least the Catholic Web site you are coping from said that Christianity did not come from the Bible at all....

Your Post #39……..
"So, ultimately, it is not the Bible but the historic Christian Church (which gave the world the canonical scriptures and their orthodox interpretation) that skeptics must defeat in order to bring Christianity down. This puts the Catholic apologist in a much stronger position than the Protestant, who must build his defense on the trustworthiness of just part of the Church’s tradition while rejecting others."

But the Bible says in Acts 11:26 that the name "Christians" was first applied to the church at Antioch where the members had been converted by the missionary efforts of believers who had been scattered away from Israel as a result of the persecution of the followers of Jesus that arose after the death of the first martyr, Stephen.

The roots of Christian church rests in the Jewish religion. ALL of the 1st Church were Jews and the church began with Jesus who was also a Jew.

I wish you well my friend and I was very reluctant to engage you once again because of the methods of disinguiness debate and name calling that you always resort to.

You do not need me to continue your agenda so I am leaving this one alone and with you and others who may enjoy this kind of communication.